- children
isolated from their family (even grandparents) and each
other

and receiving unethical extensive treatment
(interrogations,

often used as a brainwashing technique on adults)

from professionals and State agents alike

- lack of
sufficient control or documentation of treatment

- children
denied access to their mother and blood relatives

and vice versa short after being brought to hospital.

-
unprecedented adoption by Prosecutor Fred Hugi of
Defendants children

later in the end

became the star witness for the prosecution

Deborah Frisch, Ph.D.

December 8, 2008
to Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
Re: Support of Parole of Elizabeth Diane Downs, SID 6546106

The only non-circumstantial
evidence in support of the allegation that Ms. Downs shot her children
was the testimony of Christie Downs, who was coached for almost a year
by former Lane County Deputy District Attorney Fred Hugi. [Note: It is
not clear why Mr. Hugi continued to prosecute Ms. Downs on behalf of
Lane County District Attorney Harcleroad after he decided he wanted to
adopt Christie and Danny Downs. The unbelievable conflict of interest
that existed when former Lane County Deputy District Attorney Hugi
prosecuted the mother of the children he wanted to adopt is beyond the
scope of this letter.]

The unreliability of children's testimony has been documented by
cognitive psychologists such as Elizabeth Loftus of the University of
Washington, Stephen Ceci of Cornell and others. [aaarrrggghhh! i should
have added "and denied by cognitive pseudoscientists like Jennifer J.
Freyd of the University of Oregon."] The harm done to families by
unscrupulous district attorneys who bully children into falsely
testifying against their parents has recently been documented in a
documentary called "Witch Hunt" by Sean Penn about Kern County (CA)
District Attorney Ed Jagels. There is no way that a jury would convict
Ms. Downs today, based on the clearly coached (by a man who wanted to
adopt her) testimony of Christie Downs.http://www.bakersfield.com/142/story/593106.html

The Certainty of Memory Has
Its Day in Courthttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/health/the-certainty-of-memory-has-its-day-in-court.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=science
Witness testimony has been the gold standard of the criminal justice
system, revered in courtrooms and crime dramas as the evidence that
clinches a case.
Yet scientists have long cautioned that the brain is not a filing
cabinet, storing memories in a way that they can be pulled out,
consulted and returned intact. Memory is not so much a record of
the past as a rough sketch that can be modified even by the simple
act of telling the story.